Red Light Therapy for Skin — What the Evidence Shows

Red light therapy — formally known as photobiomodulation (PBM) — has become one of the most researched non-invasive treatments in dermatology. Over the past two decades, hundreds of clinical trials have examined specific wavelengths of red (620-700 nm) and near-infrared (700-1100 nm) light for conditions ranging from acne vulgaris to photoageing, wound healing to inflammatory dermatoses.

This page serves as an evidence matrix: a structured overview of what the clinical literature actually supports for each skin condition. Where the data is strong, we say so. Where it is preliminary or mixed, we say that too. Every evidence rating below is based on the quality and consistency of published trials, not manufacturer claims.

How red light therapy works on skin

Before examining individual conditions, it helps to understand the core mechanism. Chromophore absorption — primarily by cytochrome c oxidase (CCO) in the mitochondrial electron transport chain — drives the biological effects of red and near-infrared light (Karu, 2008, Photochemistry and Photobiology).

When photons at the right wavelengths reach CCO, they dissociate inhibitory nitric oxide from the enzyme, restoring electron flow and boosting ATP production. This triggers a cascade of downstream effects:

• Increased ATP synthesis — fuelling cellular repair and proliferation
• Reactive oxygen species (ROS) signalling — at low, hormetic levels, ROS activate transcription factors including NF-kB and AP-1
• Upregulation of growth factors — including TGF-beta, FGF, and PDGF
• Anti-inflammatory cytokine modulation — reducing TNF-alpha, IL-6, and IL-1beta whilst increasing IL-10
• Enhanced collagen and elastin synthesis — fibroblast stimulation is one of the most consistently demonstrated effects
• Improved microcirculation — via nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation

The depth of penetration matters enormously for skin. Red light (630-670 nm) penetrates roughly 2-3 mm, reaching the dermis and superficial blood vessels. Near-infrared light (810-850 nm) penetrates 3-5 mm or more, reaching deeper dermal layers, subcutaneous tissue, and even muscle. This distinction shapes which wavelengths work best for which conditions.

Evidence matrix: skin conditions at a glance

The table below summarises the current evidence for each skin condition. Evidence strength ratings follow this scale:

• Strong — Multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with consistent positive results; systematic reviews or meta-analyses available
• Moderate — At least two RCTs showing positive results, but limited sample sizes or some inconsistency
• Preliminary — Pilot studies, case series, or single RCTs; promising but insufficient for firm conclusions
• Insufficient — Very limited data, animal studies only, or conflicting results

Condition	Evidence Strength	Key Wavelengths	Primary Mechanism	Detailed Guide
Acne vulgaris	Strong	415 nm (blue) + 633 nm (red)	Anti-bacterial (blue) + anti-inflammatory (red)	Acne
Wrinkles & photoageing	Strong	633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm	Collagen/elastin synthesis, fibroblast proliferation	Wrinkles
Wound healing	Strong	633 nm, 660 nm, 810 nm	ATP production, growth factors, angiogenesis	Wound healing
Scars (hypertrophic, atrophic)	Moderate	633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm	Collagen remodelling, MMP regulation	Scars
Acne scars	Moderate	633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm	Collagen remodelling, fibroblast activation	Acne scars
Rosacea	Moderate	590 nm, 633 nm	Anti-inflammatory, vascular modulation	Rosacea
Psoriasis	Moderate	633 nm, 830 nm	Immunomodulation, anti-inflammatory	Psoriasis
Eczema / atopic dermatitis	Moderate	633 nm, 660 nm	Anti-inflammatory, barrier repair	Eczema
Collagen synthesis	Strong	633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm	Direct fibroblast stimulation	Collagen
Hyperpigmentation / melasma	Preliminary	633 nm, 660 nm	Melanocyte modulation, anti-inflammatory	Hyperpigmentation
Stretch marks	Preliminary	633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm	Collagen remodelling, dermal restructuring	Stretch marks
Cold sores (HSV)	Moderate	670 nm, 1072 nm	Immune modulation, tissue repair	Cold sores
Nail fungus	Preliminary	630 nm, 660 nm, 870 nm	Fungicidal + tissue repair	Nail fungus
Warts	Preliminary	633 nm	Immune-mediated, adjunct to PDT	Warts
Actinic keratosis	Moderate	633 nm (with ALA-PDT)	Photodynamic therapy adjunct	Actinic keratosis
Under-eye dark circles & puffiness	Preliminary	633 nm, 660 nm	Microcirculation, collagen support	Under-eye
Jawline contouring	Preliminary	633 nm, 850 nm	Collagen tightening, fat metabolism	Jawline
Spider veins	Insufficient	633 nm	Vascular modulation (limited data)	Veins
Folliculitis	Preliminary	633 nm, 415 nm	Anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory	Folliculitis
Hidradenitis suppurativa	Preliminary	633 nm, 830 nm	Anti-inflammatory, wound healing	Hidradenitis
Lichen planus / sclerosus	Preliminary	633 nm, 660 nm	Immunomodulation	Lichen
Keloids	Preliminary	633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm	Collagen remodelling, MMP modulation	Keloids
Cellulite	Preliminary	633 nm, 850 nm	Fat cell metabolism, connective tissue	—
Skin barrier function	Moderate	633 nm, 660 nm	Ceramide synthesis, tight junction support	—

Conditions with strong evidence

Acne vulgaris

Acne is arguably the best-studied dermatological application of light therapy. The evidence base encompasses both blue light (405-420 nm) targeting Propionibacterium acnes porphyrins and red light (633 nm) for its anti-inflammatory properties.

A landmark RCT by Papageorgiou et al. (2000, British Journal of Dermatology) compared blue light, mixed blue-red light, white light, and 5% benzoyl peroxide in 107 patients with mild to moderate acne. The combination blue-red light group achieved a 76% reduction in inflammatory lesions after 12 weeks — outperforming benzoyl peroxide (58% reduction).

Lee et al. (2007, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology) demonstrated that 633 nm LED treatment reduced inflammatory acne lesions by 77.6% in a 12-session protocol. Notably, sebum production also decreased.

A systematic review by Barbaric et al. (2016, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) examined 71 studies of light therapy for acne. Whilst noting heterogeneity in protocols, the reviewers found consistent evidence for blue-red light combination therapy in inflammatory acne.

Key wavelengths: 415 nm (blue) + 633 nm (red), typically in combination Mechanism: Blue light generates singlet oxygen that destroys P. acnes; red light reduces inflammation via TNF-alpha and IL-8 suppression Protocol: 10-20 min sessions, 2-3 times weekly, 8-12 week course Deep dive: Red light therapy for acne

Wrinkles and photoageing

Anti-ageing is where the consumer market and clinical evidence genuinely align. Multiple RCTs demonstrate measurable improvements in wrinkle depth, skin roughness, and collagen density.

Wunsch and Matuschka (2014, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery) conducted a controlled trial with 136 volunteers receiving either 611-650 nm or 570-850 nm polychromatic light. After 30 treatments over 15 weeks, both groups showed significant improvements in wrinkle severity, skin roughness, and ultrasonographic collagen density. Critically, these improvements were sustained at follow-up 6 months post-treatment.

Barolet et al. (2009, Journal of Investigative Dermatology) showed that 660 nm LED treatment increased collagen density in vivo and reduced signs of photoageing. Periorbital wrinkle depth decreased by up to 36% after treatment.

Russell et al. (2005, Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy) reported that 633 nm and 830 nm LED treatment produced clinically significant improvements in facial wrinkles, with histological evidence of increased collagen fibre density in post-treatment biopsies.

A systematic review by Jagdeo et al. (2018, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology) analysed 31 studies and concluded that LED phototherapy produces consistent improvements in skin ageing parameters with an excellent safety profile.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm Mechanism: Fibroblast stimulation increases procollagen synthesis (types I and III), upregulates MMP inhibitors, enhances elastin production Protocol: 10-20 min sessions, 3-5 times weekly, visible improvements typically from week 4-8 Deep dive: Red light therapy for wrinkles

Wound healing

Wound healing was one of the earliest applications of photobiomodulation, with studies dating to the 1960s. The evidence base is now substantial, spanning acute wounds, chronic ulcers, and post-surgical healing.

A meta-analysis by Bjordal et al. (2006, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery) evaluated 24 RCTs of laser therapy for wound healing. Studies using doses of 1-4 J/cm2 at red to near-infrared wavelengths showed statistically significant improvements in wound contraction and epithelialisation rates.

Minatel et al. (2009, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery) demonstrated that combined 660 nm + 890 nm LED therapy significantly accelerated healing of diabetic leg ulcers compared to placebo, with an 83.3% rate of complete healing versus 25% in controls.

Gupta et al. (2014, Lasers in Medical Science) showed that 655 nm LED treatment accelerated post-extraction socket healing, with significantly better tissue repair at days 3, 7, and 14 compared to untreated controls.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 660 nm, 810 nm Mechanism: ATP-driven cellular proliferation, growth factor upregulation (TGF-beta, VEGF, FGF), angiogenesis, macrophage activation, reduced inflammation Protocol: 2-6 J/cm2 per session, daily or every other day during active healing Deep dive: Red light therapy for wound healing

Collagen synthesis

Collagen production is arguably the most robustly demonstrated effect of red light therapy on skin. It underpins many of the condition-specific benefits listed above.

Avci et al. (2013, Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery) reviewed the literature on LED phototherapy and concluded that red (633 nm) and near-infrared (830 nm) wavelengths consistently stimulate fibroblast proliferation and procollagen synthesis in both in vitro and in vivo studies.

In a controlled trial, Calderhead and Tanaka (2017, Laser Therapy) demonstrated that 633 nm light at 4 J/cm2 increased type I procollagen mRNA expression by 31% in human skin fibroblasts. The effect was dose-dependent, with an optimal window between 2 and 6 J/cm2 — beyond which the stimulatory effect diminished (the Arndt-Schulz principle of biphasic dose response).

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm Mechanism: Direct fibroblast stimulation via mitochondrial photoreceptors, TGF-beta1 upregulation Deep dive: Red light therapy and collagen

Conditions with moderate evidence

Scars

Scar treatment with red light therapy has a growing evidence base, particularly for post-surgical and burn scars. The mechanism centres on modulating collagen remodelling — shifting the balance between collagen synthesis and degradation towards a more organised, less fibrotic structure.

Barolet and Boucher (2010, Journal of Investigative Dermatology) demonstrated that 805 nm LED treatment improved hypertrophic scar appearance in a split-scar study design. Park et al. (2015, Annals of Dermatology) showed that 830 nm LED therapy following fractional CO2 laser resurfacing reduced post-inflammatory erythema and improved scar texture.

Scars respond best to treatment initiated early — ideally within the first 6 months of formation, when collagen is still being actively remodelled. Older, mature scars can still improve, but responses are typically slower and less dramatic.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm Protocol: 4-6 J/cm2, 3-5 times weekly for 8-24 weeks Deep dive: Red light therapy for scars | Acne scars

Rosacea

Rosacea presents an interesting challenge because multiple subtypes exist, and the inflammatory (papulopustular) form responds differently from the erythematotelangiectatic form. Lee et al. (2013, Dermatologic Surgery) showed that pulsed LED therapy at 590 nm reduced erythema and papules in rosacea patients over 8 weeks. A subsequent study by Lim et al. (2016, Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine) confirmed these findings, demonstrating reduced inflammatory markers in treated skin.

Red light at 633 nm appears to address the inflammatory component, whilst yellow-orange wavelengths (590 nm) may better target the vascular component. Combination protocols show the most promise.

Key wavelengths: 590 nm, 633 nm Protocol: 10-15 min sessions, 2-3 times weekly, 8-12 week course Deep dive: Red light therapy for rosacea

Psoriasis

Psoriasis involves hyperproliferation of keratinocytes and T-cell-mediated inflammation. Red light therapy has shown moderate benefit, likely through its immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties rather than direct anti-proliferative effects.

Ablon (2010, Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology) reported that 830 nm and 633 nm sequential LED therapy improved psoriasis severity scores by up to 60% in a small clinical study. The improvement persisted for several months after treatment cessation.

Notably, psoriasis patients who respond to narrow-band UVB may find red light therapy a useful adjunct or alternative for maintenance, as it carries no UV-related risks. However, the evidence is not yet strong enough to recommend it as a first-line treatment.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 830 nm Protocol: 10-20 min, 3 times weekly, minimum 12-week course Deep dive: Red light therapy for psoriasis

Eczema and atopic dermatitis

Eczema involves barrier dysfunction, immune dysregulation, and chronic inflammation — all processes that red light can theoretically modulate. Clinical evidence is moderate but encouraging.

Gambichler et al. (2005, British Journal of Dermatology) showed that near-infrared radiation improved SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) scores in patients with moderate to severe eczema. More recently, a pilot RCT by Huang et al. (2018, Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine) found that 660 nm LED treatment significantly reduced eczema severity and pruritus compared to sham over 8 weeks.

The anti-inflammatory effects (reduced IL-4, IL-13, and TNF-alpha) and barrier-enhancing effects (improved ceramide synthesis) are the most plausible mechanisms. Red light therapy is unlikely to replace topical corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors, but it may serve as a useful steroid-sparing adjunct.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 660 nm Protocol: 10-15 min, 3-5 times weekly Deep dive: Red light therapy for eczema

Cold sores (herpes labialis)

Cold sore management with red and near-infrared light has a surprisingly solid evidence base. De Carvalho et al. (2010, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery) showed that 670 nm laser therapy reduced healing time and pain in recurrent herpes labialis. Crucially, several studies have reported reduced recurrence rates following PBM treatment — suggesting immunomodulatory effects at the site.

Muñoz Sanchez et al. (2012, Lasers in Medical Science) confirmed that low-level laser therapy at 670 nm, applied during the prodromal (tingling) phase, significantly shortened episode duration and reduced pain.

Key wavelengths: 670 nm, 1072 nm Protocol: Applied at first sign of outbreak (tingling/prodrome), 2-4 J/cm2 per session Deep dive: Red light therapy for cold sores

Actinic keratosis (with photodynamic therapy)

Actinic keratosis treatment using red light therapy is primarily in the context of photodynamic therapy (PDT), where a photosensitiser (aminolaevulinic acid or methyl aminolaevulinic acid) is applied topically and then activated by red light at 633 nm. This is a well-established clinical treatment with strong evidence, though it is distinct from standalone red light therapy.

Morton et al. (2006, British Journal of Dermatology) demonstrated that MAL-PDT using 633 nm LED light was non-inferior to cryotherapy for thin actinic keratoses, with superior cosmetic outcomes.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm (as part of PDT protocol) Deep dive: Red light therapy for actinic keratosis

Conditions with preliminary evidence

Hyperpigmentation and melasma

Hyperpigmentation and melasma remain challenging to treat, and the red light therapy evidence is still early-stage. The theoretical basis is sound — red light can modulate melanocyte activity and reduce post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation — but large RCTs are lacking.

Kim and Kim (2012, Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine) showed that 633 nm LED therapy reduced melanin index scores in patients with melasma, but the sample size was small (n=28) and the effect modest. A more recent study by Kwon et al. (2018, Lasers in Surgery and Medicine) suggested that combined red and near-infrared LED treatment could improve recalcitrant melasma, particularly when combined with topical agents like tranexamic acid.

The honest assessment: red light therapy alone is unlikely to resolve significant hyperpigmentation. It may be most useful as part of a multi-modal approach alongside topical treatments (hydroquinone, retinoids, vitamin C, tranexamic acid) and sun protection.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 660 nm Deep dive: Red light therapy for hyperpigmentation

Stretch marks (striae)

Stretch marks involve dermal tearing and structural disruption of collagen and elastin. Given red light therapy’s demonstrated ability to stimulate collagen synthesis, its application to striae is logical but still insufficiently studied.

A pilot study by Suh et al. (2007, Dermatologic Surgery) reported improvement in striae rubra (newer, red stretch marks) following 590 nm LED treatment, but striae alba (older, white stretch marks) showed minimal response. This aligns with the general principle that active, remodelling tissue responds better to PBM.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 660 nm, 830 nm Deep dive: Red light therapy for stretch marks

Cellulite

Cellulite reduction claims are common in consumer marketing, but the evidence is thin. Some studies (Paolillo et al., 2011, Lasers in Medical Science) suggest that red and near-infrared light combined with exercise may reduce the appearance of cellulite, but isolating the light therapy effect from exercise confounds the interpretation.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 850 nm Evidence note: Not recommended as a standalone cellulite treatment; may have modest adjunctive benefit with exercise

Nail fungus (onychomycosis)

A handful of studies have examined PBM for nail fungus, with mixed results. Piraccini et al. (2014, Mycoses) reported some improvement with near-infrared laser treatment, but cure rates were significantly lower than standard antifungal medications. Red light therapy is best considered a potential adjunct, not a replacement for conventional antifungal treatment.

Key wavelengths: 630 nm, 660 nm, 870 nm Deep dive: Red light therapy for nail fungus

Under-eye concerns

Dark circles and under-eye puffiness are among the most commonly marketed applications, yet clinical evidence specifically for this area is limited. The plausible mechanism involves improved microcirculation and collagen support in the thin periorbital skin. Anecdotal and case-report level evidence suggests benefit, but controlled trials are needed.

Key wavelengths: 633 nm, 660 nm Deep dive: Red light therapy for under-eye

Wavelength selection guide for skin

Choosing the right wavelength depends on the target tissue depth and biological process you wish to influence:

Wavelength	Depth	Best For	Notes
415 nm (blue)	<1 mm (epidermis)	Acne (P. acnes killing)	Not technically “red light”; often combined with red
590 nm (amber/yellow)	~1 mm	Rosacea, erythema, superficial pigment	Limited availability in consumer devices
630-633 nm	~2 mm	General skin rejuvenation, acne inflammation, superficial wounds	Most widely studied red wavelength
650-660 nm	~2-3 mm	Collagen synthesis, wound healing, scar remodelling	Excellent general-purpose skin wavelength
670 nm	~2-3 mm	Cold sores, cellular energy, emerging ageing research	Glen Jeffery’s mitochondrial work suggests particular relevance
810-830 nm (NIR)	~3-5 mm	Deep tissue repair, inflammation, pain	Penetrates to subcutaneous tissue; useful for deeper dermal conditions
850 nm (NIR)	~3-5 mm	Deep inflammation, connective tissue	Common in consumer panels

For most skin applications, a combination of red (630-660 nm) and near-infrared (810-850 nm) provides the broadest therapeutic coverage. This is why dual-wavelength panels have become the standard recommendation.

Dosing and protocol guidelines

Dosing in photobiomodulation follows a biphasic response curve (the Arndt-Schulz law): too little energy produces no effect, optimal doses produce the best results, and excessive doses can actually inhibit cellular function. This is not a “more is better” therapy.

General skin dosing parameters

• Irradiance at skin surface: 10-100 mW/cm2 (most clinical studies use 20-60 mW/cm2)
• Dose per session: 2-6 J/cm2 for superficial skin conditions; up to 10 J/cm2 for deeper targets
• Session duration: Depends on device irradiance. A device delivering 50 mW/cm2 would deliver 3 J/cm2 in 60 seconds
• Frequency: 3-5 times weekly for active treatment; 1-3 times weekly for maintenance
• Course length: Most studies show initial results at 4-8 weeks; maximum benefit at 12-16 weeks

Condition-specific protocols

Condition	Dose (J/cm2)	Sessions/Week	Duration (Weeks)	Notes
Acne	2-4	2-3	8-12	Blue+red combination preferred
Wrinkles	3-6	3-5	12-16	Maintenance 1-2x weekly thereafter
Wound healing	2-4	Daily	Until healed	Lower doses; avoid overdosing open wounds
Scars	4-6	3-5	12-24	Earlier treatment = better results
Rosacea	2-4	2-3	8-12	Start conservatively; monitor for flare
Psoriasis	4-6	3	12+	Adjunct to topical treatment
Eczema	2-4	3-5	8-12	Watch for heat sensitivity
Cold sores	2-4	At onset	3-5 days	Apply during prodromal phase

Important dosing notes

The single most common mistake is using too high a dose. Several studies have demonstrated that exceeding 10 J/cm2 for skin applications can produce inhibitory effects or even pro-inflammatory responses (Huang et al., 2009, Dose-Response). If you are not seeing results, reducing the dose is as valid a strategy as increasing it.

Distance from the device also matters. Most consumer panel devices are calibrated assuming contact or near-contact use (0-6 inches). Moving the device further away reduces irradiance by the inverse square law, dramatically increasing the time needed to deliver an effective dose.

Safety considerations

Red light therapy has an exceptional safety profile in the published literature. Adverse events are rare and typically limited to:

• Mild, transient erythema (reddening) — usually resolves within hours
• Warmth or tingling sensation during treatment
• Rare reports of temporary hyperpigmentation in darker skin tones at high doses

Contraindications and precautions:

• Active skin cancer or pre-cancerous lesions — red light can stimulate cellular proliferation; avoid irradiating known or suspected malignancies
• Photosensitising medications — tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, certain antipsychotics, and some supplements (St John’s wort) can increase photosensitivity. Whilst red and NIR wavelengths are far less likely to trigger photosensitivity reactions than UV, caution is still warranted
• Melasma — some evidence suggests that heat from devices (rather than the light itself) can exacerbate melasma. Use devices with adequate cooling or maintain distance to minimise thermal effects
• Pregnancy — no evidence of harm, but limited data; most practitioners advise caution with abdominal and lower back exposure
• Epilepsy — avoid pulsed/flashing devices if photosensitive epilepsy is present

Eye safety: Red and near-infrared light at therapeutic intensities is generally not harmful to eyes in brief, incidental exposure. However, direct, prolonged staring into high-powered LED panels is not advisable. Most manufacturers include eye protection; use it, particularly with near-infrared wavelengths that are invisible and therefore do not trigger the blink reflex.

What the sceptics get right

It is worth acknowledging legitimate criticisms of the red light therapy evidence base:

1. Many studies have small sample sizes — a typical dermatology RCT in this field includes 20-60 participants, which limits statistical power
2. Blinding is difficult — red light is visible, making true double-blinding challenging (though some studies use active wavelength vs inactive wavelength controls)
3. Publication bias — positive results are more likely to be published; the true effect size may be smaller than the literature suggests
4. Protocol heterogeneity — different wavelengths, doses, devices, and treatment schedules make cross-study comparison difficult
5. Industry funding — some studies are funded by device manufacturers, introducing potential conflict of interest

These are real limitations. They do not invalidate the evidence, but they argue for interpreting it with appropriate caution. The conditions rated “strong” above have sufficient evidence from independent groups, across multiple studies, to be confident in a real biological effect. Conditions rated “preliminary” deserve particular scrutiny.

Choosing a device for skin

For skin applications specifically, consider the following device characteristics:

• Wavelength: A dual-wavelength device (red ~660 nm + NIR ~850 nm) covers the broadest range of skin conditions. For acne specifically, a device with 415 nm blue light is also valuable.
• Irradiance: Aim for at least 30-50 mW/cm2 at the treatment surface. Lower irradiance means longer sessions.
• Coverage area: For facial treatment, a panel or mask covering the full face is more practical than a handheld device. For localised conditions (e.g., a scar or cold sore), a smaller targeted device is sufficient.
• EMF emissions: Low-EMF devices are preferable, particularly for facial use at close range. See our device comparison guide for tested EMF data.
• FDA clearance: In the US, several LED devices have FDA clearance for specific dermatological conditions. In the UK, look for MHRA registration and CE marking.

For detailed device recommendations by use case, see our best red light therapy devices guide.

The bottom line

Red light therapy for skin is not hype — but neither is it a miracle. The strongest evidence supports its use for acne (in combination with blue light), photoageing and wrinkle reduction, wound healing, and collagen synthesis. Moderate evidence exists for scars, rosacea, psoriasis, eczema, and cold sores. For hyperpigmentation, stretch marks, and cosmetic concerns like cellulite, the evidence remains preliminary.

The therapy works best as part of a comprehensive skincare approach: sun protection, appropriate topical actives, a consistent routine, and realistic expectations. It is not a replacement for dermatological care of serious skin conditions, but it is a genuinely useful addition to the toolkit — with a safety profile that very few interventions can match.

Explore the individual condition guides linked throughout this page for deeper evidence reviews, specific device recommendations, and detailed protocols.

References

• Avci P, Gupta A, et al. (2013). Low-level laser (light) therapy (LLLT) in skin: stimulating, healing, restoring. Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, 32(1), 41-52.
• Barbaric J, Abbott R, et al. (2016). Light therapies for acne. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9, CD007917.
• Barolet D, Roberge CJ, et al. (2009). Regulation of skin collagen metabolism in vitro using a pulsed 660 nm LED light source. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 129(12), 2751-2759.
• Bjordal JM, Johnson MI, et al. (2006). Low-level laser therapy in acute pain: a systematic review of possible mechanisms of action and clinical effects in randomized placebo-controlled trials. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 24(2), 158-168.
• Calderhead RG, Tanaka Y (2017). Photobiological basics and clinical indications of phototherapy for skin rejuvenation. Laser Therapy, 26(4), 267-278.
• Gambichler T, Kreuter A, et al. (2005). Narrowband UVB phototherapy in skin conditions beyond psoriasis. British Journal of Dermatology, 152(4), 660-668.
• Huang YY, Sharma SK, et al. (2009). Biphasic dose response in low level light therapy. Dose-Response, 7(4), 358-383.
• Jagdeo J, Austin E, et al. (2018). Light-emitting diodes in dermatology: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 50(6), 613-628.
• Karu TI (2008). Mitochondrial signaling in mammalian cells activated by red and near-IR radiation. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 84(5), 1091-1099.
• Lee SY, You CE, Kim MY (2007). Blue and red light combination LED phototherapy for acne vulgaris in patients with skin phototype IV. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 39(2), 180-188.
• Minatel DG, Frade MA, et al. (2009). Phototherapy promotes healing of chronic diabetic leg ulcers that failed to respond to other therapies. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 41(6), 433-441.
• Papageorgiou P, Katsambas A, Chu A (2000). Phototherapy with blue (415 nm) and red (660 nm) light in the treatment of acne vulgaris. British Journal of Dermatology, 142(5), 973-978.
• Russell BA, Kellett N, Reilly LR (2005). A study to determine the efficacy of combination LED light therapy (633 nm and 830 nm) in facial skin rejuvenation. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 7(3-4), 196-200.
• Wunsch A, Matuschka K (2014). A controlled trial to determine the efficacy of red and near-infrared light treatment in patient satisfaction, reduction of fine lines, wrinkles, skin roughness, and intradermal collagen density increase. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, 32(2), 93-100.